Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel X25-M SSD 80GB RAID-0 or NOT?

Last response: in Storage
Share
November 24, 2009 7:55:07 PM

I am thinking about upgrading my PC that is in my signature with a new SSD, but im trying to see if it will be worth it for me first.

I currently use x2 WD640AAKS in RAID-0 as my main OS HDD with another WD640AAKS as a storage HDD.

From what I have seen the new best thing is the "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD". I had looked at a few reviews and I think its fair to say that a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will be faster then my current RAID-0 setup. Is this the one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167018

If you would have to estimate, how much faster, more snappier will a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" be compared to my two WD640AAKS in raid 0? For the last hour I spend time reading about "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" in raid-0 compared to a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" and there seems to be a lot of different information out there. I am really considering a raid 0 and would appreciate your input on this. The SSD will be used for gaming.

If I would to assume that an "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me 50% increase performance over my current setup, how much do you estimate a RAID-0 "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me in terms of percentage?

Looking at my current hardware, do I have everything I need to be able to fully utilize a single and or RAID-0 with "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD"?

Thank you.
a b G Storage
November 24, 2009 9:26:15 PM

An X25-M would be significantly faster than your current setup. However, it would not increase your framerate in games at all. For loading and boot times though, it would be much faster than a pair of WD 6400AAKS in RAID 0.
a b å Intel
a c 154 G Storage
November 25, 2009 2:43:54 AM

Don't expect magic, but the SSD will make the OS feel snappier. The link you had is for the gen2 SSD which is what you want.
It will get the trim firmware which improves write performance. Note that for now, trim is not going to work with motherboard raid, it needs AHCI and the windows 7 drivers, not the intel drivers. I used two gen1 drives in raid-0 successfully, and sequential performance was good. My motivation was to get a single image for the OS drive larger than 80gb, not performance. The OS does lots of small reads and writes which is why raid is not much benefit for the OS.

It would seem that games might load levels a bit faster, but not enough to be worth it.

If you have the funds, the 160gb unit will also be a bit faster.
Related resources
December 20, 2009 9:20:17 PM

Raid-0 improves random accesses, provided that your OS issues multiple requests in parallel.
a b å Intel
a c 415 G Storage
December 21, 2009 3:32:39 AM

As mentioned in the other thread, most of the typical boot and application load process is serial, so you don't really get very much concurrent I/O benefit in typical tasks. The real-world performance difference of RAID 0 for such tasks is only about 10%.
a b G Storage
December 21, 2009 9:37:32 PM

Zer0Cool said:
I am thinking about upgrading my PC that is in my signature with a new SSD, but im trying to see if it will be worth it for me first.

I currently use x2 WD640AAKS in RAID-0 as my main OS HDD with another WD640AAKS as a storage HDD.

From what I have seen the new best thing is the "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD". I had looked at a few reviews and I think its fair to say that a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will be faster then my current RAID-0 setup. Is this the one? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167018

If you would have to estimate, how much faster, more snappier will a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" be compared to my two WD640AAKS in raid 0? For the last hour I spend time reading about "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" in raid-0 compared to a single "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" and there seems to be a lot of different information out there. I am really considering a raid 0 and would appreciate your input on this. The SSD will be used for gaming.

If I would to assume that an "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me 50% increase performance over my current setup, how much do you estimate a RAID-0 "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD" will give me in terms of percentage?

Looking at my current hardware, do I have everything I need to be able to fully utilize a single and or RAID-0 with "Intel X25-M 80GB SSD"?

Thank you.


You SSD will actually not give you a 50% it will infact give you a 0% performance increase. The storage device doesn't affect application performance. It will only affect your boot time, how fast applications open up, and certain things like virus scans which rely on heavily accessing the storage device. You need to understand that when you open an application, the storage device loads the application itself into the system memory (RAM). The speed at which the hard drive can provide the application to ram is what you see as how fast it opens up. However it's actual performance isn't affect by the storage device since it already in the RAM therefore the RAM is what affects their performance and other major hardware components. And yes an SSD will be a huge difference if used over a raid 0 hDD setup if used as an OS boot drive since the OS needs quick access to many small files and since SSD's have almost no access latency, this is what they excel at and will murder any HDD in any test/benchmark
December 23, 2009 5:02:02 PM

How much snappier:

I can give you the comparison between the X25-E and the 7200.12 on an E8600 +ich10r. Just for booting, but subsequent disk-intensive operations follow the same pattern, for instance searching for a file in a big directory.

Two 7200.12 in Raid-0 are a bit slower than one.

One 7200.12 boots Xp or W2k in compatibility mode in 40s. This mode gives experimentally the full throughput and random access time.

In Ahci mode, boot time drops to 30s and 22s. The only difference is concurrent requests and Ncq allowed by Ahci, and Xp's prefetch issuing such concurrent requests.

The X25-E boots W2k in 15s and Xp in 8s (from Bios end to responding Menu key).

Then, any clock change at the E8600 changes 1:1 the boot time, telling that the disk isn't a limiting factor any more. So a Raid of X25-E isn't useful; of X25-M, maybe.

The X25-M was the second fastest before competitors introduced good ones, which are a bit cheaper and at least as fast. If you read German (or German figures and graphs...) PC Games Hardware made a comparison on 09/2009. They found the P128, Ultradrive ME, Europe2, GT32, Torqx, S592, Falcon and a few others to be somewhat faster than the X25-M (nearly all of them with the Indilinx Barefoot controller and MLC Flash). At least the S592 and Falcon being available in cheaper 64GB size.
!